Common Reading Programs in Higher Education

Common Reading Programs in Higher Education听
a Patricia Lindell Scholarship research project

The Reading-in-Common program here at 麻豆视频 is entering its eighth year. Ever since the year 2000, incoming first-year students and their 鈥淕ustie Greeters鈥� have been asked to read and discuss a common book as part of the college鈥檚 orientation experience. The book is selected the year before by a committee made up of faculty, staff, and students. The book is then read during the summer, discussed during first-year orientation, and, finally, students are given the opportunity to meet the author of the book part way into the fall semester. The program is quite successful and, generally, well-liked.听听听听听听听听听听听

Similar 鈥渙ne book, one campus鈥� community reading events are held on campuses across the country, and yet very little research has been done on them. What are these programs like? What are they trying to accomplish? Are they succeeding? This report is the first phase of work being done at 麻豆视频 to investigate such questions. This report seeks to provide some insight into the nature and impact of common reading programs in higher education.

A number of tools and approaches were used to think about and investigate these programs. The two primary investigations for this study were a literature review and an online survey. The literature used for the review was collected using internet search tools, suggestions from knowledgeable friends, and from the bibliographies of papers on related topics. It might be important to note that not all of the literature consulted centers on common reading programs on college campuses specifically. Some of the resources focus on similar cultural phenomena, such as book clubs, reader鈥檚 guides, and the 鈥淥prahfication鈥� of literature. The connections and similarities may suggest that common reading programs are part of larger cultural movements and debates. It is one goal of this report to advance this suggestion.

The online survey was created using SurveyMonkey.com and was sent out to relevant lists and discussion boards. The survey was meant to gather information about the logistics, purposes, and outcomes of these programs. The full set of survey questions is attached as an appendix to this report. One admitted limitation of the survey is that there was nothing to prevent multiple responses from any one institution. This may make the quantifiable percentages a little less reliable, but provides for a wider sampling of opinions on some of the more open questions. We sought the opinions of administrators, faculty, staff, librarians and others and it is possible that we received a few different points of view on the same program. It was our hope that we would get a variety of respondents and perspectives.

For a few programs we sent out a more in-depth interview, which is also included as an appendix. These programs were chosen for their uniqueness and/or success. The object was to get at a few areas that the survey could not.

The amount of work done specifically on common reading programs in higher education remains small. However, there are a couple that were important to the current study. The National Resource Center for the First Year Experience and Students in Transition recently published a monograph by Jodi Levine Laufgraben entitled Common Reading Programs: Going Beyond the Book. This monograph is a valuable resource for colleges looking to begin, improve, or assess the program on their campus. Another helpful article came from Michael Ferguson, the associate editor of Peer Review. Ferguson wrote an article in the Summer 2006 edition called 鈥淐reating Common Ground: Common Reading and the First Year of College.鈥� This article, like this project, explores the goals and outcomes of these programs.

The current study is informed by these two works, but differs in approach and focus. While Laufgraben provides a thorough how-to for these programs, this project seeks to look more at the nature and implications of these programs. Laufgraben does this too, but this study strives to go deeper in this respect. Likewise, Ferguson deals with similar issues and topics, but differs in approach. While Ferguson used college websites to gather his information, we decided to use an online survey of those involved in the programs. This project seeks to add to works such as these and contribute a new collection of information on this topic.

Beyond these two articles centered only on programs in higher education, there are a number of articles and books focused on similar, possibly related, events and issues. A third article that addresses college programs specifically also happens to suggest an intriguing correlation between such programs and other related cultural phenomena. Thomas Bartlett鈥檚 article, 鈥淗onors Curriculum at UMass Features Oprah-Like Book Club,鈥� purports that the reading-in-common program at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst treats and uses literature in ways similar to the Oprah Book Club. To make this claim is to suggest some new implications, which may be important to explore. Thinking about social book clubs, reader鈥檚 group guides in the back of classic novels, and Oprah may contribute to a better understanding of college reading-in-common programs.

There are a number of articles written about Oprah Winfrey and her book club. R. Mark Hall, for example, wrote an article for College English entitled 鈥淭he 鈥極prahfication鈥� of Literacy: Reading 鈥極prah鈥檚 Book Club鈥�.鈥� This 鈥淥prahfication鈥� is the topic of many other articles with views both positive and negative concerning the effects of this movement. See the Works Cited page for more information on this ongoing discussion. One article that demonstrates the debate surrounding the use of books is 鈥淒econstruct This鈥� Jonathan Franzen and Oprah鈥� from the Chronicle of Higher Education. This piece is about Franzen鈥檚 refusal to let Oprah use his book for her book club.

There are also several articles and books about social book clubs and community reading-in-common programs. Mary Cregan provides some excellent support for reading groups in her article 鈥淩eading Groups are Bridging Academic and Popular Culture.鈥� DeNel Rehberb Sedo is another important voice in this discussion. She has written a few articles in and around the topic of reader鈥檚 groups. Others, like Jane Missner Barstow and Elizabeth Long, have argued that there are gender issues to be dealt with in the 鈥淏ook Club鈥� discussion.

The meaning of all of these works for reading-in-common programs goes beyond the scope of this report, but I note them here to suggest there is room and need for further thought.

The level of response for our online survey was wonderful. In the end there were 130 respondents total. The full results for the survey are included as an appendix to this report. I would like to highlight a few trends and issues that emerged in my reading of the results. More analysis will be offered in future phases of this project.

The responses from the survey revealed some strong trends as well as some profound differences in what might be called the 鈥渢ypical鈥� common reading program. For one thing, most of the respondents reported that their programs were young, successful, and, generally, seen in a positive light. Many respondents (61.2%) are involved in programs as recent as four years old or less with only 18.6% of respondents stating their program was over seven years old. Also, 28.4% of those who took the survey thought their program was largely successful, while only one respondent ranking their program as largely unsuccessful. Finally, the perceived attitudes of students, faculty, librarians, student affairs staff, and higher administration members were thought to be mostly positive. These programs seem to be off to a good start.

The people involved in the logistics of these programs appear to vary a little bit more. Academic Affairs seems to be the usual administrative base for the program, but almost an equal amount of respondents picked the 鈥渙ther鈥� category for an administrative base. The book selection process also has a few trends, but remains diverse. Faculty seem to usually be involved, but many institutions also include students, librarians, students affairs staff, academic affairs staff, and others. Likewise, book discussions are led by a variety of people from a variety of places from around the institution.

The participants of these programs appear to be quite similar throughout with 93.1% of the survey-takers replying that first-year students are the primary participants.

Over 80 % of respondents listed 鈥渢o model intellectual engagement鈥� and 鈥渢o develop a sense of community鈥� as main goals for their programs. 鈥淭o encourage reading,鈥� 鈥渢o provide students an opportunity to understand diverse perspectives,鈥� and 鈥渢o add an academic component to new student orientation鈥� were other common replies.

These goals seem to be reflected in the book selection criteria.听 Many of the participants in the survey listed the book鈥檚 ability to 鈥渟tir鈥� discussion as a priority in the book selection process. Other concerns were student enjoyment and the book鈥檚 ability to raise questions of meaning and value. Interestingly enough, only 28 out of 126 listed that it was extremely important that the book be 鈥渋ntellectually challenging;鈥� 61 participants listed it as 鈥渋mportant.鈥�

The survey ended with two open-ended questions: 鈥渨hat are the greatest strengths of your common reading program鈥� and 鈥渨hat are the greatest challenges.鈥澨� Though, naturally, there are no statistics for these responses, a few patterns came to light.

The strengths listed seem to indicate that many schools are achieving theirs goals and that they feel these goals are quite worthwhile. Many of the strengths listed are similar to the goals stated. Several listed the 鈥渃ommunity鈥� and 鈥渃ommon ground鈥� created by the program as a strength. Others listed student and faculty interaction and inter-campus cooperation as part of the community building that occurs. 鈥淎cademic鈥� and 鈥渋ntellectual鈥� activity were often cited in partnership with the student-faculty interaction. Others cited specific events such as an author鈥檚 visit as a strength of their program.

Many of the challenges listed were the corollaries of a lack in the aforementioned strengths. Similar words, phrases, and issues appeared in the responses to both of these questions. Faculty participation and 鈥渙wnership,鈥� for example, were common responses under both strengths and challenges. In other words, a strong program will have high faculty involvement and interest and any program that does not will find difficulty. What emerges from much of the discussion of strengths and weaknesses is a veritable list of 鈥渕ust-haves鈥� for a strong program. Without high student and faculty participation and commitment, the goals of community-building and intellectual stimulation will be hard to achieve. Other challenges mentioned were funding, getting students to read the book, and the ever-difficult book selection process.

The Reading-in-Common program at 麻豆视频 is one that I have personally experienced and benefited from. I remember reading When the Emperor was Divine by Julie Otsuka in the months before I came to college. I remember discussing the book with my Gustie Greeter group and I even managed to make it to the author鈥檚 speaking event. Overall, a pretty special opportunity to read a good book, think about it with new friends, and meet a working, living author.

I hope this report has convinced you that there is more thinking to be done concerning common reading programs. These programs seem to have a lot to offer college students and I am guessing there is still room to grow.

Barron, Dennis. 鈥淚 Teach English 鈥� and I Hate Reader鈥檚 Guides,鈥� Chronicle of Higher Education 49, no. 6 (2002): B5.

Barstow, Jane Missner. 鈥淩eading in Groups: Women鈥檚 Clubs and College Literature Classes.鈥� Publishing Research Quarterly (Winter 2003): 3-17.

Bartlett, Thomas. 鈥淗onors Curriculum at UMass Features Oprah-Like Book Club.鈥� The Chronicle of Higher Education 49.25 (28 Feb. 2003): A10.

Cregan, Mary. 鈥淩eading Groups Are Bridging Academic and Popular Culture.鈥� Chronicle of Higher Education (19 December 1997): B4-5.

鈥淒econstruct This鈥� Jonathan Franzen and Oprah.鈥� Chronicle of Higher Education 30 Nov. 2001: B4.

Ferguson, Michael. 鈥淐reating Common Ground: Common Reading and the First Year of College.鈥� Peer Review (Summer 2006): 8-10.

Hall, R. Mark. 鈥淭he 鈥極prahfication鈥� of Literacy: Reading 鈥極prah鈥檚 Book Club鈥�.鈥� College English 65, no. 6 (July 2003): 646-667.

Laufgraben, J.L. Common Reading Programs: Going Beyond the Book (Monograph No. 44). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 2006.

Long, Elizabeth. Book Clubs: Women and the Uses of Reading in Everyday Life. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 2003)

Sedo, DeNel Rehberg. 鈥淧redictions of Life After Oprah: A Glimpse at the Power of Book Club Readers.鈥� Publishing Research Quarterly (Fall 2002): 11-22.

________. 鈥淩eaders in Reading Groups: An Online Survey of Face-to-Face and Virtual Book Clubs.鈥� Convergence 9, no. 1 (2003): 66-90.

Striphas, Ted. 鈥淎 Dilectic With the Everyday: Communication and Cultural Politics on Oprah Winfrey鈥檚 Book Club.鈥� Critical Studies in Media Communication 20, no. 3 (2003): 295-316.

Appendixes

If you were involved in the start up of your program, or if you know its history, can you describe what led to its being adopted on your campus? What constituents were most interested in getting a common reading program started? What obstacles have you encountered?听

If you typically host an author event, why do you feel it鈥檚 valuable? What kinds of activities is the author typically involved in?

If developing a sense of community is a goal of the program, in what ways do you feel this program succeeds or fails?

How do students respond to the common reading program? Which students are the primary audience for the program? What percent of those students read the book? Participate in programs? What are the benefits for students generally?

How do faculty on your campus respond to the program? How many faculty typically read the book? Participate in events? Use the book in their courses? If faculty have been supportive of the program, what do they find valuable about it? If faculty have been critical of the program, what kinds of issues do they raise?

Have there ever been controversies about the chosen book? What was the nature of the controversy?